They don’t. They favor the thugs of the world; they don’t let people stand up to the government, but they make it much easier for the citizenry to prey upon and slaughter itself.
You think any defensive position will hold out against the US military?
An armed uprising in the US against a tyrannical government will not involve hunkering down and waiting out the govt.
If and when this patriotic uprising against the tyrannical government happens, how we tell the patriots from the organized mobs with guns?
The patriots will be elderly, obese, white people. Oorah!
Probably not close, but I don’t think we need to be close. From what I have read, I think from the article, some genocides were helped by gun control measures instituted by prior regimes decades earlier.
It seems almost axiomatically true that a device which renders one’s physical size and strength less relevant in a confrontation is a great hedge against a system “favoring thugs,” but I guess we’re going to hear how this isn’t the case.
Same thing apparently; guns = virtue. If a bunch of armed guys smash though a door and shoot everyone, we can be sure that the guys with guns are red-blooded American patriots, and the people that were shot since they were unarmed must have been evil liberal communist atheist traitors.
Thuggery isn’t based on size, it’s based on willingness to hurt others.
Thanks for showing how you didn’t read anything in the post you quoted.
An armed citizenry isn’t going to prevent a “government takeover”, whatever that might mean. The military is better armed, better trained, and has the benefit of holding the metaphorical high ground already. Infantry actions are pointless when you can accomplish your goals far better through intel and strategic target elimination. It isn’t hard to figure out who has the large caches of weapons, and once that is done you can forget about officer friendly coming to your door. A tyrranical government will eliminate the owners through subterfuge or sniper. Those who are truly paranoid and live in a hardened, or fortified facility will find themselves the casualties of an RPG, mortar, or air strike should they make themselves too much trouble to waste infantry on. Let us not forget that there are any number of other non or less-than-lethal options available to military for suppression and arrest of such targets as well. Few of which require immediate proximity to small arms fire to be effective.
But let us suppose that the military is stupid enough to send infantry against the citizenry in close combat. Be honest now, what percentage of your generic gun collectors/ enthusiasts would you favor against fully trained, equipped, and fit soldiers acting as a unit? Soldiers whose day job is combat. Who have the full support of the largest, best equipped, and most thoroughly trained military on the planet?
Guns favor the side willing to threaten and commit violence to get what it wants; thugs. A 5 foot 2 woman who is willing to commit violence is more dangerous than a 6 foot 6 man who is not, regardless of what they are armed with. This is obvious.
You said:
What is the legal and cultural protection that American’s have from genocide? You think the 2nd Amendment is that, right? By what mechanism do you think it protects us?
Is the answer guns?
You quoted a post which says “who possesses guns isn’t a factor in whether there’s a genocide” with the argument “no guns don’t protect against genocide!!!” What is the argument here other than your reading comprehension skills?
The Iraqi insurgence seems to have held it’s own.
In the case of an American patriotic uprising, how does one tell the armed patriot from the armed thug?
I think you’re inflamed so you’re reading more into what I said than there was.
You implied that the 2nd is what prevents genocide. Because if we “shred” it, that increases the possibility for genocide. By what mechanic do you think it does this? Do you retract your assertion that:
?
Your argument is based on the idea that guns prevent genocide.
I don’t know. How did they do it in 1776?
Uh, yeah, I remember when we were expelled from Iraq.
There was mass confusion in 1776-a lot of “patriots” really weren’t, and a lot of people were attacked on mere rumors of being unpatriotic. It was one gigantic clusterfuck, and if it weren’t for outside help we would have lost that war.
edited to add: My question remains-how would you have us tell the difference between armed patriot and armed thug?
The patriots followed the orders of their elected government and, when available, wore uniforms.